Skip to content

· Private foundation

The Ackerman Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$42k
Granted FY2025still arriving
67
Grants FY2025still arriving
5
States reached
$7k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2020 to 2025.

Religion$175kHuman Services$85kEducation$12kHealth$4kPhilanthropy$3kYouth Development$1kInternational$434Animals$125Other$0
02FY2025 · 67 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$180
Median grant
5
States reached
$29k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
TRLC$6,570
BMG SPECIAL FUND$6,200
Individual grant recipient$5,900
KEREN HAIR ZICHRON YISROEL$4,400
CONG BNEI SHLOMO ZALMAN$3,750
TOMS RIVER LEARNING CENTER$2,000
AVREICHEM$1,100
KEREN ZICHRON ARYEH LEIB$1,000
KEREN HACHESED$1,000
KHAL BAIS YITZCHOK$780
Individual grant recipient$600
Individual grant recipient$500
Individual grant recipient$500
Individual grant recipient$500
Individual grant recipient$490
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY21–25, $1k) land where the poverty rate runs at 17%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%ISRAEL MEDICAL FUND: $290 → 17%KEREN HATZEDAKA: $200 → 11%AMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER INC: $180 → 11%BETH OLOTH: $18 → 20%TEHILLAT NAAVA SHLACH LACHMECHA: $100 → 20%BONEI OLAM: $180 → 20%KIMPATURN AID: $72 → 20%TEHILLAT NAAVA SHLACH LACHMECHA INC: $72 → 20%KEREN ANIYEM: $100 → 20%KEREN ANIYEM: $100 → 20%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

MN
IL
NY
MA
NV
OH
PA
NJ
CT
CA
MD
TX
FL
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

80%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$226k · 92 repeat orgs$56k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +1% since the first grant, against 0% for those funded once.

92 repeat relationships: 40 still active in FY2025, 52 since wound down; 27 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

92
164

Total granted

$226k
$45k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+1%
0%

Still filing today

24%
15%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $10k went to new ones.

50%100%’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’20’21’22’23’24’25
ReligionPhilanthropyEducationHuman ServicesHealthInternationalOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • YZ
    YESHIVA ZICHRON MAYIR
    4× · 2021–2024 · $13k · revenue +33%
  • OM
    OHR MEIR UBRACHA
    3× · 2020–2022 · $1k · revenue +87%
  • CL
    CHAI LIFELINE INC
    2× · 2021–2022 · $1k · revenue +1%

Funded once

  • MI
    MEOROS INC
    one grant, 2024 · $6k · revenue 0%
  • MT
    MIKVAH TAHARA OF TOMS RIVER INC
    one grant, 2024 · $5k
  • AI
    AGUDATH ISRAEL BAIS BINYOMIN
    one grant, 2020 · $3k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Yeshiva Ohr Yisroel
Philanthropy
2
Keren Yaakov Ben Menachen Tzvi Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Zichron Avrohom Yosef
Philanthropy
4
Tomchei Torah Inc

Religious Teaching

—
5
Chasdei Dovid Elimelech Inc
Philanthropy
6
Zicron Eliyahu Inc
—
7
Gemilas Chesed Kramer Inc
Philanthropy
8
Sherit Isroel
—
9
Shaarei Halacha Inc
Philanthropy
10
Chevras Shabbos Kodesh Podcast Fellowship
Religion
11
Zichron Moshe Elihu Tzedoka Fund
Philanthropy
12
Rashbi Tehillim Incorporated
Religion
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Tzidkas Mordechai Inc; the most unlike its peers is Next Step. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

55 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 55 of the 283 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
5
Early backer (in before they grew)
52/55
Grantees still filing
22/55
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CONG BNEI SHLOMO ZALMAN: $31,387 · OtherCONG BNEI SHLOMO ZALMANBMA SPECIAL FUND: $31,050 · OtherBMA SPECIAL FUNDKEREN HAIR ZICHRON YISROEL: $21,600 · OtherKEREN HAIR ZICHRON YISROELYESHIVA ZICHRON MAYIR: $13,300 · OtherYESHIVA ZICHRON MAYIRTRLC: $11,320 · OtherTOMS RIVER LEARNING CENTER INC: $10,560 · Other+159 more: $128,912 · Other+159 moreKEREN ZICHRON ARYEH LEIB: $5,500 · ReligionOHR NAAVA: $3,950 · ReligionLIVING KIDDUSH HASHEM INC: $1,500 · Religion+9 more: $2,182 · ReligionMEOROS INC: $6,000 · HealthCHAI LIFELINE INC: $1,014 · HealthNext Step: $600 · HealthBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $578 · Health+1 more: $150 · HealthOHR MEIR UBRACHA: $1,040 · PhilanthropySHUVU RETURN INC: $760 · PhilanthropyDAAS MEISHARIM: $720 · PhilanthropyVEROMAMTANU INC: $500 · PhilanthropyTZIDKAS MORDECHAI INC: $120 · PhilanthropyCATSKILLS HATZALAH INC: $830 · EducationMESIVTA NEZER HATORAH: $700 · EducationHEBREW DAY SCHOOL OF SULLIVAN AND ULSTER COUNTIES INC: $620 · EducationYESHIVA NESIVOS HATORAH INC: $125 · EducationYESHIVA SHAAREI ARAZIM: $120 · EducationISRAEL MEDICAL FUND CORP: $290 · Human ServicesKEREN ANIYIM INC: $200 · Human ServicesKEREN HATZEDAKA INC: $200 · Human ServicesAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER: $180 · Human ServicesBonei Olam Inc: $180 · Human ServicesTEHILLAT NAAVA SHLACH LACHMECHA FOUNDATION INC: $172 · Human ServicesEZER MIZION: $500 · InternationalTZEDAKAH VCHESED INC: $300 · International
Other$248,129Religion$13,132Health$8,342Philanthropy$3,140Education$2,395Human Services$1,222International$800

Showing the 200 largest grantees by grant value.

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetYESHIVA ZICHRON MAYIR: $13,300 over 4y, 0.9% of budgetMEOROS INC: $6,000 over 1y, 3.1% of budgetKEREN ZICHRON ARYEH LEIB: $5,500 over 2y, 0.5% of budgetOHR NAAVA: $3,950 over 4y, 0.1% of budgetLIVING KIDDUSH HASHEM INC: $1,500 over 2y, 0.3% of budgetOHR MEIR UBRACHA: $1,040 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetCHAI LIFELINE INC: $1,014 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetCATSKILLS HATZALAH INC: $830 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetSHUVU RETURN INC: $760 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetMACHON MASEH ROCKEACH INC: $750 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetDAAS MEISHARIM: $720 over 3y, 0.1% of budgetMESIVTA NEZER HATORAH: $700 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetMADRAIGOS INC: $660 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetHEBREW DAY SCHOOL OF SULLIVAN AND ULSTER COUNTIES INC: $620 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetBIKUR CHOLIM INC: $578 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetPEYLIM LEV LACHIM: $510 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetEZER MIZION: $500 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKEREN CHAIM ZANVIL INC: $400 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetKEREN HASHVIIS INC: $360 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetSAMCHAINU INC: $360 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetZICHRON TZVI ELIMELECH: $322 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTZEDAKAH VCHESED INC: $300 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetISRAEL MEDICAL FUND CORP: $290 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTHE ALEPH INSTITUTE INC: $254 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLEV BEREL INC: $250 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetKEREN ANIYIM INC: $200 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetKEREN HATZEDAKA INC: $200 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAMERICAN FRIENDS OF YAD ELIEZER: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetCHOFETZ CHAIM HERITAGE FOUNDATION: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetADOPT A SHADCHAN CORP: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetBonei Olam Inc: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPROJECT INSPIRE INC: $180 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVA OHR YITZCHOK: $172 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetTEHILLAT NAAVA SHLACH LACHMECHA FOUNDATION INC: $172 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetKESHER NAFSHI INC: $150 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVA NESIVOS HATORAH INC: $125 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTZIDKAS MORDECHAI INC: $120 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetYESHIVA SHAAREI ARAZIM: $120 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTZUR FOUNDATION INC: $100 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds YESHIVA ZICHRON MAYIR ↗
  • Who funds MEOROS INC ↗
  • Who funds KEREN ZICHRON ARYEH LEIB ↗
  • Who funds OHR NAAVA ↗
  • Who funds LIVING KIDDUSH HASHEM INC ↗
  • Who funds OHR MEIR UBRACHA ↗
  • Who funds CHAI LIFELINE INC ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Ojc FundNY64.9× affinity58 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Ojc Fund · Jack Adjmi Family Foundation Inc · Zichron Chaim Charity Fund · Jewish Communal Fund · The Jimmy and Berta Khezrie Charitable Foundation · The Fishoff Family Foundation · National Society for Hebrew Day Schools · The Jmg Foundation · The Sorala Foundation · The R & S Family Foundation Inc · Astar Foundation Inc · Eisenberg Family Foundation Inc

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The Ackerman Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Ackerman Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24
no gov · 130%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 5%
  • Yeshiva Keter Torah Inc: 8% of income from government
  • Mesivta Nezer Hatorah: 7% of income from government
  • Yeshiva Orchos Chaim Inc: 5% of income from government
  • Yeshiva Nesivos Hatorah Inc: 3% of income from government
  • The Aleph Institute Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
13get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
0rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–24
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 283 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Ackerman Family’s filings →

More from the funding graph